Stanford at Notre Dame: Cardinal Scouting Report

My friend Dan, who gave us the look at the Michigan offense, broke down - via the fine service ESPN3 provides - Stanford's game with UCLA.  The Cardinal won 35-0.  Box score here.

The Stanford Cardinal offense is an interesting case. On the one hand, they look dominant and controlling in the box score. No team has slowed them down, and they have made few mistakes. On the other hand, the game tape reveals a basic offense centered around a modified West Coast passing attack. This is not the ground and pound rushing attack that Notre Dame saw a year ago. Instead, Stanford runs out an incredible variety of formations that are designed to confuse defenses and give QB Andrew Luck the easiest reads possible.

This is not a run-first team. Stanford uses the pass to set up the run. Then, when the game is under control, they pound the ball at opposing defenses. In their first game, against Sacramento State, Luck was 14/18 passing in the first half and then 3/5 in the second half (the backup QB was 0/1). In their second game, against UCLA, Luck was 9/18 in the first half and then 2/6 in the second half. In their third game, against Wake Forest, Luck was 15/19 in the first half and then 2/4 in the second half (backup QBs were 3/5). So, while the final run/pass ratios suggest that Stanford is a run-first team, a deeper look at the stats show that dominant first halves this season have allowed them to control the clock with the run in the second halves.

Andrew Luck is not a great thrower. Overall, he is a very good QB but not great at throwing the football. The guy never makes mistakes. His throws, while sometimes bad, are always in a place that only his WR can catch them. He rarely throws into tight coverage. Luck is quick. He isn't afraid to tuck and run if the pass isn't there. He has a few 10+ yard scrambles this season. Stanford will run the option with him, but not often. It appears that he has some leeway at the line to make audibles or at least adjustments; they have been effective. Although his completion percentage and efficiency rating are phenomenal, it is not due to his ability to make great throws. It is a combination of rarely being under pressure from defenses, being given simple reads (floods, rollouts, short crosses, etc.) and making smart decisions. That being said, Luck is a guy that will beat you if you give him the chance.

The scariest thing about this team is their dominance without looking dominant. They have only had a handful of big plays this year. Most scoring drives have been 10+ plays with runs of 2-5 yards and passes of 5-7 yards mixed throughout. They run out 5 different RBs and haven't gone to one consistently. The one constant in the backfield is two-way FB/LB #48 Owen Marecic (more on him later). The two big WRs are Ryan Whalen and Doug Baldwin. Baldwin is their big play guy; he will certainly get some looks this week. Whalen is injured, which is a significant blow to their passing game. None of these guys are dominant.

The offensive line is the closest thing to dominant about this team. They have overpowered every team they have played this year. They seem to engulf opposing defensive linemen and don't let them free. They aren't great second-level blockers (they seem to focus on the line and let the RB make the second level miss), but this hasn't been a problem since most teams have shown nickel packages on defense so far this season. Luck was not sacked against UCLA or Wake Forest (and probably not Sacramento State, but I couldn't find the stats for it).

One of the greatest assets of this offense is their formation variations. In the first half against UCLA, Stanford only ran plays out of the same formation twice. The closest thing to a common formation that they run is a TE and WR to one side with two players on the other side. Sometimes these are two WRs, two TEs, a TE and a WR, or a FB and WR. Stanford runs plays out of the pistol, shotgun, trips wide, trips tight, 3 TE to one side, double TE I-formation, offset I-formation, and double twin WRs, to name a few. No formation suggests a certain play or even a run or a pass. It is a guessing game every time.

Additionally, the offense is always in motion. Rarely was there a play where a WR, TE, or FB wasn't shifting around to give Luck a read of the defense. This is where Stanford comes the closest to having a tell. If a slot WR motions, but stays on his side of the field, this is usually a pass, and the motion is designed to give Luck a read of the coverage. If the motion is a TE or FB moving behind the QB/offensive line, then it is usually a run play with that man as the lead blocker. Run plays almost always follow Marecic. Whether he is lined up as a FB or H-Back, if it is a run play, it will almost always follow him. He is a beast of a blocker and an exciting guy to watch on offense and defense. Stanford runs very, very few misdirections or counters. I would guess that this is based on the level of competition so far this season and would expect this to be one of the wrinkles Notre Dame will see on Saturday.

The goal of this offense is to constantly move players around to make the defense uncomfortable. Stanford avoids giving the defense any idea of what is going on. Defenses need to make a decision about whether they want to try and keep a base defense on the field and match up with whoever Stanford throws out there or try to make quick personnel changes to match DBs with WRs. The offense seems to have a "take what the defense will give you" mentality in this regard. If the defense stays with more LBs, then they will try to hit you with the quick pass routes. If the defense shows a nickel or dime package, then they will pound it up the middle.

The Cardinal offense is slow and methodical. Unless playing with a short field, their drives usually last at least 5 plays and take up a few minutes on the game clock. However, they aren't afraid to run the hurry-up, especially in the red zone. This is not the no-huddle, audible at the line of scrimmage variety. Instead, the team will call the play in the huddle, then sprint to the line, set, and hike the ball before the defense can set or know what hit them. UCLA was caught substituting players late, trying to match the Stanford personnel, numerous times. They had to use all 3 timeouts in the first half because of it.

This is a talented offense, but I think it can be stopped. There are no dominant players and the playcalling is from a slightly-modified traditional West Coast offense. To be successful against Stanford, a defense will need to put some pressure on Luck. No team has been successful thus far, except for the occasional blitz, which Luck and his offensive line have handled well. Pressure from the defensive line will force Luck to move and, hopefully, make him uncomfortable. None of the RBs are especially elusive, so tackling shouldn't be a particular problem. None of the WRs are particularly quick, so matching up shouldn't be a problem. It comes down to each player on the defense knowing their role and executing.

In reviewing the UCLA-Stanford game, UCLA did a very good job of stopping Stanford in the first half. Like they did against Sacramento State, and later Wake Forest, Stanford opened up with the pass. UCLA was prepared. They forced a quick 3-and-out on the first drive (one of two in the game, both in the first half). UCLA also forced another punt after a 6 play possession in the first half. Out of 6 possessions in the first half, Stanford only scored 2 FGs and a TD.

The second half was a different story. The UCLA defense looked tired and Stanford inflicted their will on them. In the half, Stanford only had 3 possessions (not including a fumble return for a TD). Those drives resulted in 2 TDs and then 5 minute drive to end the game. The drive of the game was Stanford's first possession of the second half. They got the ball with about 10 minutes left from their own 32. They proceeded to drive 68 yards in 18 plays for a touchdown, leaving just under a minute left in the third quarter. The drive included 4 passes and 4 rushes to get to the UCLA 33. Then concluded with 10 straight rushes until Luck ran it in from 4 yards out on third down. The very next play from UCLA was a fumble returned for a TD and the game was over.

One of the scary things about watching this game was that UCLA always looked like they were playing solid defense. They forced Stanford into a lot of medium-length third downs but couldn't force the punt, especially in the second half. To me it shows a poorly conditioned team. To add to that, at one point in the first half, the defensive linemen were puking on the field. I hope we don't see that from this Notre Dame team. However, I can imagine watching Notre Dame's defensive line looking strong and faltering on multiple third downs. That can't happen.

UCLA's base defense appeared to be a 4-3, but they changed personnel a lot. Rather than trying to dictate pace and personnel to Stanford, they reacted to the players that Stanford put on the field. As much as possible, UCLA matched extra WRs with extra DBs. This led to many nickel and dime situations. When not subbing in DBs, UCLA was shifting LBs out of the middle and matching up with TEs and slot receivers. Often times they would drop back into zone and Luck was able to read this with some simple motion.

UCLA's LBs played well in rush and pass defense. They looked mildly susceptible to cutbacks and counters, but there were no counters and only 2 cutbacks that I saw. The defensive middle zone was well covered on almost every play. Luck got away with a couple quick slants and crossing routes that I hope Notre Dame would be able to knock down.

The UCLA defensive line was poor. They mixed up 3, 4, and 5 man fronts, none of which had any particular effectiveness, especially against the pass. The line did not get any pressure on the vast majority of pass plays. A combination of Luck's movement in the pocket and the strong OL provided plenty of time for WRs to get open.

The UCLA secondary was strong. They put a lot of men in coverage and were far more successful against the pass than Stanford's other two opponents. They were in a mix of zones and man coverages but seemed to have the most success when they were in a tight zone or man coverage with safety help.

I think Notre Dame can learn from UCLA's successes and play soundly against the stout Cardinal offense. First, and perhaps most importantly, ND has to create some pressure with its front 3, plus whatever LB they may be sending on pass plays. Forcing Luck into quick decisions will create the most incompletions and maybe even force a poor decision or two. I think if he is rattled, he will start making mistakes. Luck also likes to run, so it will be important for the front 7 to contain him on pass plays and keep him in the pocket. If he gets loose, then someone has to follow up with a hard hit.

Second, the ND secondary should have a very successful game. Outside of Baldwin, there isn't much WR talented with Whalen out. People love to talk about the TEs, but I didn't see much pass catching ability. Most of them seemed like H-backs and did a lot of blocking. I think there will be some chances for the ND DB's to jump routes and make some big plays.

 Finally, the ND LBs need to attack. In the last two games there have been some complaints about the ND LBs over-pursuing and getting themselves out of position. I don't think this will be a problem against Stanford. I would like to see the LBs play the same way they have been all year with continued improvements. I do think Stanford will throw in some counters and maybe an end around or reverse. I don't think this will be a problem.

I went into this analysis afraid of Stanford and their endless bank of formations. Their sneaky dominance made me nervous and Luck's efficiency kept me awake. But now that I have completed it, I am not afraid any more. I think the ND defense will be in position to make some plays and maybe have a chance to create some turnovers. The keys will be getting to Luck, containing the run game, and dictating the Stanford play-calling rather than reacting to it.